Tag Archives: Acts 1:7-8

He Takes Away, Part 2

Posted on by

A gnat of a notion that takes away may not be the best translation of αἴρει (a form of αἴρω) in, He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me,[1] became important enough to address directly.  Here is a table of possible translations.

Meanings of αἴρω Possible Translations of αἴρει in John 15:2a
to lift up, take up, pick up He lifts up every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to look up (in prayer) He looks up (in prayer) every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to move upward, raise vertically He moves every branch that does not bear fruit in me upward.
to raise to a higher level He raises every branch that does not bear fruit in me to a higher level.
to take up and carry along He takes up and carries along every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to lift up and carry away, remove He lifts up and carries away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to take away, remove (no suggestion of lifting up) He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to bear with, endure He bears with every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to carry, transport He carries every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to bear and uphold He bears and upholds every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to be dressed as an office-bearer He dresses every branch that does not bear fruit in me as an office-bearer.
to cause to emerge He causes every branch that does not bear fruit in me to emerge.

The previous essay went in a direction I didn’t expect.  Though I enjoyed diagramming sentences in elementary school, I had no idea I could begin to do it in Greek.  Comparing the Greek construction of the clauses of John 15:2a to Mark 4:15b and Luke 8:12b I realized that Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away[2] was structurally more like with their hands they will lift you up[3] than either immediately Satan comes and snatches the word that was sown in them,[4] or then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.[5]

Here I want to consider Paul’s usage of a similar metaphor.  I realize this can be frustrating.  I’m well past the point where at other times in my life I’ve abandoned Jesus and done whatever I wanted instead.  But ever since I prayed my slightly insulting prayer of miniscule faith—“If you’re really out there, I really want to know you”—something has changed.  “Whatever I wanted instead” has never turned out to be exactly what I wanted then or now.  For the flesh has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires that are opposed to the flesh, for these are in opposition to each other, so that you cannot do what you want.[6]  I eventually wound up back with Jesus studying the Bible.

With this history between us, we laugh at my frustration now, go to bed, get up and do it again the next morning.  Now[7] I am speaking to you Gentiles, Paul wrote believers in Rome (Romans 11:13-21 NET).

Seeing that[8] I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them.  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? [Table]  If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches.

Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root,[9] do not boast over the branches.  But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.  Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in” [Table].  Granted!  They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith.  Do not be arrogant, but fear!  For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you.

The Greek words translated perhaps above in the NET parallel Greek text and NA28 were μή πως, and μήπως in the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text.  The former were in brackets indicating a suspicion that μή πως may not be original.  For all I know that is a suspicion that μήπως is more original.  I’m not studying the manuscripts.  From a logical perspective, however, I could argue that perhaps is not original to Paul.

For if God did not spare the natural branches (those in Israel who did not believe Jesus), he will not spare you (Gentiles who do not believe Jesus).  Gentiles (ἔθνεσιν and ἐθνῶν, both forms of ἔθνος) do not comprise a special favored class with potentially unique rights and privileges in Paul’s theology.  And will…spare you (σοῦ φείσεται) here means to spare one from being broken off in the future as some were broken off (ἐξεκλάσθησαν, a form of ἐκκλάω) in the past from participation in the richness of the olive root (NET) or partaking in the root and fatness of the olive tree (KJV).

Viewed from the perspective Paul revealed in this passage the question was not: is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?[10]  Rather, the question was: “is this the time you are restoring Israel to the kingdom?”  But Jesus didn’t correct his disciples’ question (Acts 1:7, 8 NET).

He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” [Table].

So how does this relate to He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me?  I made the connection initially through the English word branches.  I got in trouble for that kind of thinking once.

I had written an essay much like one of these, comparing/contrasting various passages from the Bible, but had made my linkages in English translation only.  I showed it to my brother.  He was not very far into it before he got red in the face and tore it up.  This wasn’t something stored on disc somewhere that I could easily reprint.  It was my only copy laboriously typed.  But I don’t want to make it sound worse than it was.  I was a musician, an athlete and a sinner.  I was used to being yelled at, didn’t necessarily like it, but very accustomed to it.

What hurt the most was that I had been sincerely excited about what I thought I was learning in my new NASB Bible.  When my brother calmed down, he showed me how to use Strong’s Concordance.  It was a big book only keyed to the KJV at the time.  So I began the habit of reading the NASB, checking with the KJV, looking up words in the concordance and writing out lists of verses which contained the Greek or Hebrew word in question.  When I looked back at my lists of verses and couldn’t recall the sense they had made to me, I copied longer passages.  Eventually I got a Commodore 64 and started typing verses and passages.  Different computers and more notes later, I looked back at my lists of Bible passages.  When I couldn’t remember what I was thinking at the time I had compiled them, I began to write essays again.

Here are some of the differences between the two passages in question.

Romans 11:16, 17 (NET)

John 15:1, 2 (NET)
11:16 root ρίζα 15:1 vine ἄμπελος
branches κλάδοι, a form of κλάδος 15:2 branch κλῆμα
11:17 κλάδων, another form of κλάδος
broken off ἐξεκλάσθησαν, a form of ἐκκλάω takes away αἴρει, a form of αἴρω

A Greek reader wouldn’t necessarily make any connection between these metaphors based on these words.  The only potential connection is the imagery conjured by the words.  I took the following for comparison: If anyone does not remain[11] in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the[12] fire, and are burned up.[13]  Jesus is trying to get me to slow down and pay particular attention to the Greek.  So here goes.

Romans 11:21

 John 15:6
 NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus  NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus
εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, [μή πως] οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται ει γαρ ο θεος των κατα φυσιν κλαδων ουκ εφεισατο μηπως ουδε σου φεισηται ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται εαν μη τις μεινη εν εμοι εβληθη εξω ως το κλημα και εξηρανθη και συναγουσιν αυτα και εις πυρ βαλλουσιν και καιεται

NET

 KJV NET

KJV
For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed[14] lest he also spare not thee. If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and are burned up. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

There is a factual statement in Romans 11:21 indicated by the negation οὐκ and the verb it negates: God did not spare the natural branches.  Or if I put the words back closer to their order in Greek: God the natural branches did not spare.  The phrase did…spare was the way the NET translators rendered ἐφείσατο, a form of φείδομαι in the aorist tense and the indicative mood.

Then he used that fact (εἰ γὰρ, translated For if) to deduce another: he will not spare you.  Or if I put the words back closer to their order in Greek: neither you will he spare.  The phrase will…spare was the way the NET translators rendered φείσεται, another form of φείδομαι in the future tense and the indicative mood.  The negation οὐδὲ is a negation of fact as well.

So, if Paul actually felt the necessity to place μή πως or μηπως in the midst of this deductively valid if-then statement, it says something extraordinary, not about Gentiles but about being in Christ.  And though the originality of μή πως is questioned in the NA28 and NET parallel Greek text, it still stands.

Jesus proposed a hypothetical situation.  This is indicated by the qualified negation μή and the verb μένῃ.[15]  Justin Alfred in a posting on the BLB Blog, “EMPHATIC NEGATIONS IN BIBLICAL GREEK,” quoted from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

µή, the Septuagint for אַל , אַיִן , אֵין, a particle of negation, which differs from οὐ (which is always an adverb) in that οὐ denies the thing itself (or to speak technically, denies simply, absolutely, categorically, directly, objectively), but µή denies the thought of the thing, or the thing according to the judgment, opinion, will, purpose, preference, of someone (hence, as we say technically, indirectly, hypothetically, subjectively).

The Greek verb translated does…remain (NET) is μένῃ, a form of μένω in the present tense and subjunctive mood.  “It is an important distinction to understand…that the only place in which ‘time’ comes to bear directly upon the tense of a verb is when the verb is in the indicative mood.  In all other moods and uses the aktionsart of the verb tense should be seen as primary.”[16]

What is the aktionsart?

In English, we think of the tense of a verb as denoting the “time” of the action. In Greek also time is indicated by tense, but only absolutely so in the Indicative mood. And time is not the primary significance of Greek tenses. Fundamentally, Kind of Action, rather than Time of Action, is indicated by tense…

The kind of action indicated by the use of the present tense is durative…

The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless (ἔστιν ὁ θεός) or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment: γράφω ‘I am writing [now]’;…The present stem may also be iterative: ἔβαλλεν ‘threw repeatedly (or each time)’. (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)[17]

So a word like μένῃ is durative (in progress).  I can grasp that.  Except for tense If anyone does not remain in me (present tense) was translated as if the Greek was identical to if God did not spare the natural branches (past tense).  It gives me the impression that one has remained in Jesus at some point in the past but presently does not.  The qualified negation μή does not immediately precede the verb μένῃ, however, as the absolute negation does (οὐκ ἐφείσατο) in Paul’s factual statement.  In Jesus’ hypothetical statement μή immediately precedes the pronoun and creates something more like a logical category, μή τις μένῃ (if not one remaining in me).  Granted, remaining may not be the best translation of the present tense, but I’m trying to avoid adding the helper verb to do.

The translators assumed that the verb ἐβλήθη (a form of βάλλω) had no subject, so they supplied he: ἐβλήθη ἔξω, he is thrown out.  The aorist tense is so weird I’m sure a clever translator can justify the present tense here.  But the main reason ἐβλήθη ἔξω was translated he is thrown out rather than “he was thrown out” is the assumption that it has no subject.  The supplied subject he seems to refer back to the first clause, so the aorist verb must be conformed to the present tense because the verb μένῃ is in the present tense.

A table of the verbs in John 15:6, excluding μένῃ, follows.

Verb A Form Of… Syntactical Classification NET KJV
ἐβλήθη βάλλω Aorist Tense, Passive Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Singular is thrown is cast
ἐξηράνθη ξηραίνω Aorist Tense, Passive Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Singular dries up is withered
συνάγουσιν συνέχω Present Tense, Active Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Plural are gathered up gather
βάλλουσιν βάλλω Present Tense, Active Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Plural thrown cast
καίεται καίω Present Tense, Middle/Passive Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Singular are burned up are burned

I think I can do more justice to these verbs by assuming that τὸ κλῆμα was the intended subject of at least the singular verbs: “If not one remaining in me, like a branch was thrown out and dried up.”  (The NIV translators did this for the first two singular verbs.)

The next two plural verbs are tricky.  The KJV translators supplied men as the subject.  A note (21) in the NET acknowledged that “they gather them up and throw them into the fire” is an appropriate translation of the Greek.  But I think the NET translators were onto something (despite translating the two active verbs in a passive voice) treating αὐτὰ as an implied subject/object of this sudden intrusion of plural branches, such branches: “If not one remaining in me, like a branch was thrown out and dried up, such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire.”

The final verb is singular again and refers back to the singular branch, τὸ κλῆμα: “If not one remaining in me, like a branch was thrown out and dried up, such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and it burns.”  Or if I want to be a stickler about the active voice: “If not one remaining in me, like a branch was thrown out and dried up, they gather them up and throw them into the fire, and it burns.”  I need to add some words to make this anything like an English sentence: “If [he is] not one remaining in me, [he is] like a branch [that] was thrown out and dried up, they gather them up and throw them into the fire, and it burns.”

About this time it dawned on me that maybe that was the translators’ intent all along and my own tendency to read a sin/punishment motif into things prevented me from understanding it that way.  Another note (20) in the NET makes this supposition doubtful as far as the NET translators are concerned.  But then, that‘s what I’ve grown to appreciate about the NET, the sense that the translators and I are from the same socially constructed reality, the same religious milieu, unlike the KJV translators.

So, just about the time I began to feel like I was straining out a gnat, I was reminded of the camel I was compelled to swallow if I didn’t entertain this particular one.

The Greek words translated thrown out are ἐβλήθη (a form of βάλλω) ἔξω.  It is not, “If anyone does not remain in me, he throws himself out;” ἐβλήθη is in the passive voice.  The implication is that the one who does not remain in me (ἐν ἐμοί) is thrown out by someone else.  The gardener, Jesus’ father, is the most likely referent in this metaphor.  This gardener (our Father to all who believe) would do two things then: 1) He takes away every branch in Jesus that bears no fruit; and, 2) He throws out every branch that does not remain in Jesus.

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, Jesus said, and the one who comes to me I will never send away[18]…(but the gardener, my Father, might).

I’ll pick this up in another essay.  Tables comparing Luke 8:12; Romans 11:13; 11:17 and John 15:6 in the NET and KJV follow.

Luke 8:12 (NET)

Luke 8:12 (KJV)
Those along the path are the ones who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες, εἶτα ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν οι δε παρα την οδον εισιν οι ακουοντες ειτα ερχεται ο διαβολος και αιρει τον λογον απο της καρδιας αυτων ινα μη πιστευσαντες σωθωσιν οι δε παρα την οδον εισιν οι ακουοντες ειτα ερχεται ο διαβολος και αιρει τον λογον απο της καρδιας αυτων ινα μη πιστευσαντες σωθωσιν

Romans 11:13 (NET)

Romans 11:13 (KJV)
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles.  Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· ἐφ᾿ ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω υμιν γαρ λεγω τοις εθνεσιν εφ οσον μεν ειμι εγω εθνων αποστολος την διακονιαν μου δοξαζω υμιν γαρ λεγω τοις εθνεσιν εφ οσον μεν ειμι εγω εθνων αποστολος την διακονιαν μου δοξαζω

Romans 11:17 (NET)

Romans 11:17 (KJV)
Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root, And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
Εἰ δέ τινες τῶν κλάδων ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ ἀγριέλαιος ὢν ἐνεκεντρίσθης ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ συγκοινωνὸς τῆς ρίζης τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας ἐγένου ει δε τινες των κλαδων εξεκλασθησαν συ δε αγριελαιος ων ενεκεντρισθης εν αυτοις και συγκοινωνος της ριζης και της πιοτητος της ελαιας εγενου ει δε τινες των κλαδων εξεκλασθησαν συ δε αγριελαιος ων ενεκεντρισθης εν αυτοις και συγκοινωνος της ριζης και της πιοτητος της ελαιας εγενου

John 15:6 (NET)

John 15:6 (KJV)
If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and are burned up. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

 

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται εαν μη τις μεινη εν εμοι εβληθη εξω ως το κλημα και εξηρανθη και συναγουσιν αυτα και εις πυρ βαλλουσιν και καιεται εαν μη τις μεινη εν εμοι εβληθη εξω ως το κλημα και εξηρανθη και συναγουσιν αυτα και εις το πυρ βαλλουσιν και καιεται

[1] John 15:2a (NET)

[2] John 15:2a (KJV)

[3] Matthew 4:6b (NET)

[4] Mark 4:15b (NET) Table

[5] Luke 8:12b (NET)

[6] Galatians 5:17 (NET) Table

[7] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had δὲ here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had γαρ (KJV: For).

[8] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had οὖν (not translated in the NET) here.  The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text did not.

[9] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had της ριζης και της πιοτητος της ελαιας εγενου (KJV: of the root and fatness of the olive tree) here, where the NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had τῆς ρίζης τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας ἐγένου (NET: in the richness of the olive root).

[10] Acts 1:6b (NET) Table

[11] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had μένῃ here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had μεινη (KJV: abide).

[12] The NET parallel Greek text, NA28 and Byzantine Majority Text had the article τὸ here.  The Stephanus Textus Receptus did not.

[13] John 15:6 (NET)

[14] The Stephanus Textus Receptus is the closest Greek text that I have found online to serve as parallel Greek for the KJV.  Here is one of the places it falls short.  According to Strong’s Concordance circa 1890 a form of ὁράω (ὁρᾶτε possibly) occurred somewhere in this verse, translated take heed.

[15] The verb was μεινη (another form of μένω) in the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text.  I don’t think that would alter what I’m saying here about a “hypothetical situation” but I am struggling with both the qualified negation and aorist tense.

[16] Greek Verbs (Shorter Definitions), Verb Tenses, Time & “Kind of Action” in Greek Verbs

[17] Aktionsart & the Present Tense

[18] John 6:37 (NET) Table

Sowing to the Flesh, Part 2

Posted on by

We religious folk of a Christian persuasion are fixated on life and death, heaven and hell.  Jesus was fixated on fulfilling the Scriptures.  How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?[1] (πληρωθῶσιν, a form of πληρόω) He asked rhetorically when Peter took up arms to defend Him.  Up to that moment Jesus’ disciples were willing to follow Him, even to death.  But upon his insistence to submit quietly to death to fulfill the Scriptures they fled.

I do not know the man![2] Peter declared.

Jesus was not the Messiah his religion taught him to expect.  Even after his resurrection Jesus’ disciples wanted Him to conform to their religious image: Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?[3] they asked.  Tracey R. Rich expressed both a modern and an ancient understanding of this in two very succinct paragraphs.[4]

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above [Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:2-5, 10, 11-12; 42:1; Jeremiah 23:5, 8; 30:3; 33:15, 18; Hosea 3:4-5; Micah 4:2-3; Zephaniah 3:13; Zechariah 14:9]. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kokhba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kokhba was the mashiach. Bar Kokhba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kokhba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach.

Rather than frustration with his disciples’ failure to know Him Jesus exhibited supreme confidence in his own Holy Spirit (John 16:12-14): You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority, He said.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.[5]

Enter through the narrow gate, Jesus said, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction (ἀπώλειαν, a form of ἀπώλεια), and there are many who enter through it.  But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it.[6]  What happens if I approach this with Jesus’ fixation rather than my own?  Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, He said.  I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill (πληρῶσαι, another form of πληρόω) them.[7]  What if ἀπώλειαν meant a destruction of corruption—being completely severed from the righteousness Jesus has provided us here and now through his death and resurrection and the power of his Holy Spirit—rather than an eternal sojourn in a lake of fire?

Instead of an immutable prophecy of his relative failure to accomplish his Father’s mission—For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him[8]—we have Jesus’ warning that the church will do a less than stellar job of imparting the Gospel of his grace.  But this understanding is only evident back in context (Matthew 7:11-16a NET):

If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!  [Luke was explicit that these good gifts are the Holy Spirit.]  In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills (ἐστιν, a form of ἐστί; literally, is) the law and the prophets.  Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to [corruption] (ἀπώλειαν, a form of ἀπώλεια), and there are many who enter through it.  But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it.  Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves.  You will recognize them by their fruit.

None of this is to wag my finger at pastors, priests and Bible teachers, but to appreciate Jesus’ saying: Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God![9]  I feel terribly inept at explaining what it’s like to live by the Spirit.  I stumbled over progressive sanctification.  The knowledge enshrined in churches as doctrine, however, was not the issue.  A table of quotes from Presbyterian, Baptist and Christian & Missionary Alliance perspectives on progressive sanctification follows.

Progressive Sanctification
Presbyterian Baptist

C&MA
“Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.” What God has begun in regeneration He will work to continue without interruption throughout the believer’s life. All Christians understand first the first reality: that Christ’s blood has atoned for their sins and they no longer need to fear eternal separation from God. But most Christians do not understand or experience the second reality—the fullness of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
“The Lord Jesus has undertaken everything that His people’s souls require; not only to deliver them from the guilt of their sins by His atoning death, but from the dominion of their sins by placing in their hearts the Holy Spirit; not only to justify them, but to sanctify them.” It involves our availability to the Holy Spirit, our separation from sin, and our growth in the likeness of Christ. Every Christian is a sanctified person, belonging to Christ, and therefore should keep from immorality (1 Cor. 6:13-14; 2 Cor. 7:1). We are involved in a lifetime struggle against sin and a moment-by-moment submission to the Holy Spirit for victory. The New Testament clearly teaches that there are two kinds of Christians. In 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, Paul talks about Christians who are “spiritual” and contrasts them with those who are “worldly,” or “carnal.” In Romans 7 and 8, the comparison is between those believers who are self-propelled and those who are Spirit driven. In Ephesians 5:18, he implies that some are “filled” and some are “not filled.”
The Lord has given to us His Spirit, and by Him communicates His own life to the justified believer. Holiness is divinely wrought within Christians. Christ enables us to walk in holiness. It [to “present your bodies a living sacrifice”] is a choice we make as believers. No one else can make that choice for us. It is self-determined and is repeated often. The opportunity to experience the two realities of sanctification is available to every believer. The path to the Spirit-filled life requires taking faith-filled risks, which always involves change.
As we look at Christ we are changed into the image of Christ, by the work of the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer for the purpose of enabling us to overcome sin and conform us to the likeness of Christ. When we “walk by the Spirit” we do not carry out the deeds of the flesh, but produce “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16, 22). Surrender We can’t make ourselves holy any more than we can make ourselves saved—we become holy only by realizing that we haven’t got what it takes to be holy (Romans 6:11; Romans 12:1-2).

Accept Christ is our Sanctifier in the same way that He is our Savior (Colossians 2:6; Galatians 2:20).

Abide We maintain a continuous relationship with Jesus through obedience to His Word (John 15:1-11).
Our dependence upon the Holy Spirit is not something that is attained once for all, but is the result of a daily struggle and a constantly renewed commitment.

God will not give up on His goal of making you become like Christ. He will not give up on you until the day He presents you complete, perfect, and mature to the Father in heaven.

These were my religious influences growing up.  I have nothing but minor quibbles over words (obedience, for instance) with any of these statements individually and appreciate all of them together.  I even checked the Catholic catechism.  Sanctification was a subcategory of justification there rather than a separate topic but still I have no serious objection to anything in it.  Oddly enough, I found words closer to my own misunderstanding in the Catholic catechism under the heading III. MERIT, line 2010:

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

In my misunderstanding I thought positional sanctification was God’s work in Christ and progressive sanctification[10] was up to me to accomplish.  I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood but I never read the catechism.  Besides, line 2011 is fairly clear on this:

The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

The charity of Christ is ἀγάπη in the New Testament, the love that is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit, the love that is the fulfillment of the law.  The relative failure of the church to impart the Gospel of grace was not a lack of knowledge.  So is it in the execution, the way that knowledge is imparted?  Here I’m reminded of an observation that made little sense to me until this very moment: Churchmen liked me better when I was striving on my own to keep rules than when I began to try to live by the Spirit.

My use of churchmen requires some explanation.  I don’t necessarily mean clergy.  And I don’t mean men exclusively.  The best explanation I can imagine is a profile.  Churchmen aren’t believers in the sense that they have any awareness of a crisis moment that marks a difference in their lives between unbelief and belief.  They are probably the children or grandchildren of believers.  Christianity seems natural to them and they have never strayed far from it.  But fitting a profile doesn’t necessarily mean that one did the “crime.”  The “crime” in this case is too facile an identification with the local church in which one takes a leading role: “My church is the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through my church.”  But the real crime was that I idolized churchmen and coveted their status.

Churches as institutions have their own agendas.  I fit into those agendas better when I obey their rules.  In other words, churchmen are institutionally biased to favor compliant hypocrites, actors.  This is not to say that they are necessarily hypocrites themselves.  It is to say that they have little experience with any struggle to live by the Spirit.  Their instruction to those of us who do have trouble takes the form of platitudes—”sin is just bad habits which can be overcome by good habits“—techniques for inculcating said good habits and rules to prohibit bad ones, as opposed to faith in Jesus by his Holy Spirit.

Rules are neat and orderly.  Living by the Spirit is messy: When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation.[11]  Churchmen (I will say for the sake of argument) decided long ago that we should sit silently in neat rows, stand when we were told to stand, sing what we were told to sing and listen to the lesson the church wanted us to hear.  My church allowed revelations, I suppose, during testimony time.  (I thought testimonies were about all the good things God did for people who were good and “obedient,” you know, churchmen.)  Tongues and interpretations?  Forget about it!

And, frankly, I intend all of this more as a metaphor for imparting the Gospel of grace.  I don’t really care how a church service is organized as much as I care whether someone who doesn’t know how to be led by the Spirit of God can learn that there.  And here I return to Martin Luther.

He lived in a created cosmos where it is hard… to enter the kingdom of God.  He grew up in a religious system partially corrupted by false teachers and false prophets.  (The alternative—Jesus killed all the false teachers and false prophets and sent them to hell before they had any influence on anyone else—is untenable to me.)  Martin Luther, by the Holy Spirit, recognized some of the corrupting influences that plagued him and wrote to correct them.  But was Martin Luther perfect and totally free of error himself?

The Luther/Graebner commentary on the fruit of the Spirit[12] follows:

The Apostle does not speak of the works of the Spirit as he spoke of the works of the flesh, but he attaches to these Christian virtues a better name. He calls them the fruits of the Spirit.

LOVE

It would have been enough to mention only the single fruit of love, for love embraces all the fruits of the Spirit. In I Corinthians 13, Paul attributes to love all the fruits of the Spirit: “Charity suffereth long, and is kind,” etc. Here he lets love stand by itself among other fruits of the Spirit to remind the Christians to love one another, “in honor preferring one another,” to esteem others more than themselves because they have Christ and the Holy Ghost within them.

JOY

Joy means sweet thoughts of Christ, melodious hymns and psalms, praises and thanksgiving, with which Christians instruct, inspire, and refresh themselves. God does not like doubt and dejection. He hates dreary doctrine, gloomy and melancholy thought. God likes cheerful hearts. He did not send His Son to fill us with sadness, but to gladden our hearts. For this reason the prophets, apostles, and Christ Himself urge, yes, command us to rejoice and be glad. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee.” (Zech. 9:9.) In the Psalms we are repeatedly told to be “joyful in the Lord.” Paul says: “Rejoice in the Lord always.” Christ says: “Rejoice, for your names are written in heaven.”

PEACE

Peace towards God and men. Christians are to be peaceful and quiet. Not argumentative, not hateful, but thoughtful and patient. There can be no peace without longsuffering, and therefore Paul lists this virtue next.

LONGSUFFERING

Longsuffering is that quality which enables a person to bear adversity, injury, reproach, and makes them patient to wait for the improvement of those who have done him wrong. When the devil finds that he cannot overcome certain persons by force he tries to overcome them in the long run. He knows that we are weak and cannot stand anything long. Therefore he repeats his temptation time and again until he succeeds. To withstand his continued assaults we must be longsuffering and patiently wait for the devil to get tired of his game.

GENTLENESS

Gentleness in conduct and life. True followers of the Gospel must not be sharp and bitter, but gentle, mild, courteous, and soft-spoken, which should encourage others to seek their company. Gentleness can overlook other people’s faults and cover them up. Gentleness is always glad to give in to others. Gentleness can get along with forward and difficult persons, according to the old pagan saying: “You must know the manners of your friends, but you must not hate them.” Such a gentle person was our Savior Jesus Christ, as the Gospel portrays Him. Of Peter it is recorded that he wept whenever he remembered the sweet gentleness of Christ in His daily contact with people. Gentleness is an excellent virtue and very useful in every walk of life.

GOODNESS

A person is good when he is willing to help others in their need.

FAITH

In listing faith among the fruits of the Spirit, Paul obviously does not mean faith in Christ, but faith in men. Such faith is not suspicious of people but believes the best. Naturally the possessor of such faith will be deceived, but he lets it pass. He is ready to believe all men, but he will not trust all men. Where this virtue is lacking men are suspicious, forward, and wayward and will believe nothing nor yield to anybody. No matter how well a person says or does anything, they will find fault with it, and if you do not humor them you can never please them. It is quite impossible to get along with them. Such faith in people therefore, is quite necessary. What kind of life would this be if one person could not believe another person?

MEEKNESS

A person is meek when he is not quick to get angry. Many things occur in daily life to provoke a person’s anger, but the Christian gets over his anger by meekness.

TEMPERANCE

Christians are to lead sober and chaste lives. They should not be adulterers, fornicators, or sensualists. They should not be quarrelers or drunkards. In the first and second chapters of the Epistle to Titus, the Apostle admonishes bishops, young women, and married folks to be chaste and pure.

Is there anything here that indicated that the Holy Spirit produces this fruit in us, or does it read like a list of ideals to pursue or rules to obey?  I see two things that may hint at the Holy Spirit’s involvement: 1) “There can be no peace without longsuffering” and, 2) “the Christian gets over his anger by meekness.”  While I appreciate the connection of the fruit of the Spirit and the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13, nothing here would have turned me from viewing that definition as a list of rules to obey to prove I was a Christian.  In fact, the explanation given for “a walk in the Spirit”[13] seems both mystical and works oriented to me:

They crucify the flesh with its evil desires and lusts by fasting and exercise and, above all, by a walk in the Spirit. To resist the flesh in this manner is to nail it to the Cross. Although the flesh is still alive it cannot very well act upon its desires because it is bound and nailed to the Cross.

Granted, failing at the effort to love like Jesus by turning Paul’s definition of love into rules, prompted me to look for something else—something like the fruit of the Spirit.  But I wonder about Martin Luther.

If Theodore Graebner’s translation carries anything of Luther’s own thinking on the fruit of the Spirit, this alone could account for the pridefulness on which Joe Heschmeyer commented.  If Luther let go of the rule-based righteousness of the monastery yet didn’t fully embrace the righteousness of God in the fruit of the Spirit as he fought for his life to believe in justification by “faith alone” against a stronger adversary than any of us know as the Roman Catholic Church—both pridefulness and a general lack of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control make sense to me.

Every boy growing up in my church knew that “sowing to the flesh” meant viewing pornography.  While that may well be an example of “sowing to the flesh” in one area of human life, rejecting the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21, 22) that is given new every morning—the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control that flows from his Holy Spirit—to do it somehow on one’s own is sowing to the flesh in every area of human life (Galatians 6:7-8 NET).

Do not be deceived.  God will not be made a fool.  For a person will reap what he sows, because the person who sows to his own flesh will reap corruption (φθοράν, a form of φθορά) from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

Luther/Graebner commented[14] literally if superficially[15] on this:

This simile of sowing and reaping also refers to the proper support of ministers. “He that soweth to the Spirit,” i.e., he that honors the ministers of God is doing a spiritual thing and will reap everlasting life. “He that soweth to the flesh,” i.e., he that has nothing left for the ministers of God, but only thinks of himself, that person will reap of the flesh corruption, not only in this life but also in the life to come. The Apostle wants to stir up his readers to be generous to their pastors.

While sharing all good things with the one who teaches[16] the word is a good thing (Galatins 6:9, 10) that flows from the goodness (ἀγαθωσύνη) of the fruit of the Holy Spirit, bribing one’s teacher will not help anyone live righteously here and now—unless one is also led by the Spirit of God.  Here I’ll turn to Peter to explain Paul (Acts 8:17-20 NET):

Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Now Simon, when he saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, offered them money, saying, “Give me this power too, so that everyone I place my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.”  But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish (ἀπώλειαν, a form of ἀπώλεια) with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money!”

If your teacher is not even trying to teach you how to be led by the Spirit of God, find another to share all good things with the one who teaches.  Better yet, cry out to Jesus and study the Scriptures with Him.  He loves the Scriptures.  He died, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and will return again to make them so.

[1] Matthew 26:54 (NET)

[2] Matthew 26:72b (NET) Table

[3] Acts 1:6b (NET) Table

[4] Tracey R. Rich, Mashiach: The Messiah, Judaism 101

[5] Acts 1:7, 8 (NET) Table

[6] Matthew 7:13, 14 (NET)

[7] Matthew 5:17 (NET)

[8] John 3:17 (NET)

[9] Mark 10:24b (NET)

[10] Some think that progressive sanctification is so tainted with self-righteousness that it is heresy. I’m sensitive to this criticism, having lived and breathed that heresy, but will wait to consider it in another essay.

[11] 1 Corinthians 14:26b (NET)

[12] Commentary on Galatians 5:22, 23

[13] Commentary on Galatians 5:24

[14] Commentary on Galatians 6:8

[15] Therefore they will eat from the fruit of their way, and they will be stuffed full of their own counsel (Proverbs 1:31 NET).  The one who sows iniquity will reap trouble (Proverbs 22:8a NET)…  But you have plowed wickedness; you have reaped injustice; you have eaten the fruit of deception.  Because you have depended on your chariots; you have relied on your many warriors (Hosea 10:13 NET).  See: Is “you reap what you sow” biblical?

[16] Galatians 6:6 (NET)

Romans, Part 57

Posted on by

In this essay I’m looking at the aftermath of Jesus feeding five thousand plus people in the light of his assessment of the Jewish leaders (Ἰουδαῖοι, a form of Ἰουδαῖος)[1] as an answer to how the Father seeking his own is not self-seeking.  And ultimately it is a continuing part of my attempt to view—Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord[2]—as a definition of love (ἀγάπη) rather than as rules.  Matthew and Mark end this thread of their narratives focused on people who did not eat from the five loaves and two fish.

Matthew

Mark
After they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret.  When the people there recognized him, they sent word into all the surrounding area, and they brought all their sick to him.  They begged him if they could only touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched it were healed.

Matthew 14:34-36 (NET)

 After they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and anchored there.  As they got out of the boat, people immediately recognized Jesus.  They ran through that whole region and began to bring the sick on mats to wherever he was rumored to be.  And wherever he would go – into villages, towns, or countryside – they would place the sick in the marketplaces, and would ask him if they could just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched it were healed.

Mark 6:53-56 (NET)

John grappled with the more distressing story of many who did eat from the five loaves and two fish (John 6:22-24 NET).

The next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the lake realized that only one small boat had been there, and that Jesus had not boarded it with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.  But some boats from Tiberias came to shore near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks.  So when the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus.

When they found him on the other side of the lake, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”[3]

Jesus didn’t answer their question.  Instead He said to those who were part of the crowd… following him because they were observing the miraculous signs he was performing on the sick,[4] who saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, [and] began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world,”[5] who were going to come and seize him by force to make him king:[6] I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs (σημεῖα, a form of σημεῖον), but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted.[7]

They didn’t argue with Him about it.  In fact, they said something a bit later that confirms his assessment of their motives.[8]  And I’m reminded of Mark’s Gospel narrative, they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.[9]  Who and what did they believe instead of Jesus?

I’ll hazard a guess that they were afraid (ἐφοβοῦντο, a form of φοβέω) of the Jewish (Ἰουδαίους, a form of Ἰουδαῖος) religious leaders.  For the Jewish leaders (Ἰουδαῖοι, another form of Ἰουδαῖος) had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.[10]  We are disciples of Moses, the Ἰουδαῖοι said.  We know that God has spoken to Moses!  We do not know where this man comes from![11]

Jesus didn’t walk into anyone’s place of employment, interrupt him and say, Do not work for the food that disappears.  Instead, He said it to those who had spent their time, their effort and their money to follow Him not because [they] saw miraculous signs, but because [they] ate all the loaves of bread [they] wanted: Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life – the food which the Son of Man will give to you.  For God the Father has put his seal of approval on him.[12]

I played the organ, and sometimes the piano, at a downtown mission the summer after I got my driver’s license.  The man who ran the mission was a nice enough guy in everyday life but an angry[13] preacher.  I felt sorry for the homeless men, sometimes a few women, sitting through that angry tirade everyday for the free meal that followed.  But as I look at it in this light, maybe they got what they paid for, indigestion.

Those who followed Jesus not because [they] saw miraculous signs, but because [they] ate all the loaves of bread [they] wanted seemed to grasp his meaning when He told them to work… for the food that remains to eternal life.

What must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?[14] they asked.

This is the deed God requires, Jesus answered, to believe in the one whom he sent.[15]

They understood that Jesus claimed to be the one God sent: Then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe you?  What will you do?[16]  Here they unmasked themselves, for they already had a sign in mind.  Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[17]  In other words, give us more free food and we’ll believe you.

I’m going to hazard another guess that what they really wanted wasn’t free food.  What they really wanted was confirmation of their own goodness and acceptability in God’s sight (Deuteronomy 28:12, 13 NET):

The Lord will open for you his good treasure house, the heavens, to give you rain for the land in its season and to bless all you do; you will lend to many nations but you will not borrow from any.  The Lord will make you the head and not the tail, and you will always end up at the top and not at the bottom, if you obey his commandments which I am urging you today to be careful to do.

Let me put this back in perspicuous form:  If you obey his commandments, the Lord will make you the head and not the tail.  If you obey his commandments, you will always end up at the top and not at the bottom.  Those who followed Jesus not because [they] saw miraculous signs, but because [they] ate all the loaves of bread [they] wanted didn’t feel like they were the head, at the top, under Roman rule.  It was a jarring, glaring, living example of denying the consequent, modus tollens, a deductively valid argument that they were not obeying the Lord’s commandments.  And it wasn’t from a lack of trying.  That needs to be clearly understood.

The Jewish Encyclopedia online defines Zealots (Hebrew, Ḳanna’im) as follows: “Zealous defenders of the Law and of the national life of the Jewish people; name of a party opposing with relentless rigor any attempt to bring Judea under the dominion of idolatrous Rome, and especially of the aggressive and fanatical war party from the time of Herod until the fall of Jerusalem and Masada. The members of this party bore also the name Sicarii, from their custom of going about with daggers (‘sicæ’) hidden beneath their cloaks, with which they would stab any one found committing a sacrilegious act or anything provoking anti-Jewish feeling.”[18]

“This unfailing ‘zeal for the Law’ became the standard of piety in the days of the Maccabean struggle against the Hellenizers. Thus it is asserted that when Mattathias slew the Jew whom he saw sacrificing to an idol, ‘he dealt zealously for the law of God, as did Phinehas[19] unto Zimri the son of Salu’; and Mattathias’ claim of descent from Phinehas implies that, like the latter, he obtained for his house the covenant of an everlasting priesthood (I Macc. ii. 24, 26, 54).”[20]

“‘Ḳanna’im’ was the name for those zealous for the honor and sanctity of the Law as well as of the sanctuary, and for this reason they at first met with the support and encouragement of the people and of the Pharisaic leaders, particularly those of the rigid school of Shammai.[21] It was only after they had been so carried away by their fanatic zeal as to become wanton destroyers of life and property throughout the land that they were denounced as heretic Galileans (Yad. iv. 8) and ‘murderers’ and that their principles were repudiated by the peace-loving Pharisees.”[22]

Jesus’ disciples were steeped in this milieu.  Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?[23]  This question was foremost in their minds moments before Jesus’ ascension.  And Jesus’ response to his faithful followers was, You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you…[24]

So Jesus instructed them to wait in Jerusalem for the promised Holy Spirit, the source of the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control[25] that is the fulfillment of the law.[26]  Jesus was focused on the work his Father had sent Him to accomplish (Matthew 5:17-20 NET):

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.  So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So how did Jesus respond to those who followed Him not because [they] saw miraculous signs, but because [they] ate all the loaves of bread [they] wanted?

I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven.  For the bread of God (ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ) is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.[27]

Give us today our daily bread (ἄρτον, a form of ἄρτος).[28]  I wouldn’t alter the translation but it’s important to realize that as I pray this I’m asking, Give us today our daily Jesus, the fruit of his Spirit.  Sir (κύριε, a form of κύριος), give us this bread all the time,[29] those who followed Jesus not because [they] saw miraculous signs, but because [they] ate all the loaves of bread [they] wanted said.

Outwardly, they appeared to be doing right, following Jesus.  They said the right words: Sir (literally, Lord), give us this bread all the time.  The note in the NET reads: “The Greek κύριος (kurios) means both ‘Sir’ and ‘Lord.’ In this passage it is not at all clear at this point that the crowd is acknowledging Jesus as Lord. More likely this is simply a form of polite address (‘sir’).”  And I agree, for when Jesus clearly identified Himself as the ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ saying, I am the bread of life (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς),[30] they began complaining about him.[31]

I am the bread of life.  The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty.  But I told you that you have seen me and still do not believe.  Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away.  For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.  Now this is the will of the one who sent me – that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day.  For this is the will of my Father – for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.[32]

Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus (Ἰουδαῖοι, a form of Ἰουδαῖος) began complaining about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven…”[33]  The note in the NET reads: “Grk ‘Then the Jews.’ In NT usage the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus…Here the translation restricts the phrase to those Jews who were hostile to Jesus (cf. BDAG 479 s.v. ᾿Ιουδαῖος 2.e.β), since the ‘crowd’ mentioned in 6:22-24 was almost all Jewish (as suggested by their addressing Jesus as ‘Rabbi’ (6:25). Likewise, the designation ‘Judeans’ does not fit here because the location is Galilee rather than Judea.”

Yes, I get it.  The Jews who responded to Jesus this way were hostile or hardened.  There were other Jews who were not so hostile, who had heard and learned from the Father.[34]  But I think another important point that John and the Holy Spirit have made here is that it was “Jewishness” that began complaining about him because he said…  It was the religious mind, and the religious mind comes in many flavors, even scientific, even atheist, even Christian flavors.

Romans, Part 58

[1] John 5:16-47 (NET) Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders (Ἰουδαῖοι) began persecuting him (verse 16).

[2] Romans 12:11 (NET) Table

[3] John 6:25 (NET)

[4] John 6:2 (NET)

[5] John 6:14 (NET)

[6] John 6:15 (NET)

[7] John 6:26 (NET)

[8] John 6:31 (NET)

[9] Mark 6:52 (NET)

[10] John 9:22 (NET)

[11] John 9:28b, 29 (NET)

[12] John 6:27 (NET)

[13] James 1:20; 3:17, 18 (NET)

[14] John 6:28 (NET)

[15] John 6:29 (NET)

[16] John 6:30 (NET)

[17] John 6:31 (NET)

[18] Kaufmann Kohler,  ZEALOTS, Jewish Encyclopedia

[19] Numbers 25 (NET)

[20] Kaufmann Kohler,  ZEALOTS, Jewish Encyclopedia

[21] An interesting insight on Paul: Paul: At the Feet of Gamaliel?  In my zeal for God I persecuted the church (Philippians 3:6a NET).

[22] Kaufmann Kohler,  ZEALOTS, Jewish Encyclopedia

[23] Acts 1:6 (NET) Table

[24] Acts 1:7, 8a (NET) Table

[25] Galatians 5:22, 23a (NET)

[26] Romans 13:10b (NET)

[27] John 6:32, 33 (NET)

[28] Matthew 6:11 (NET)

[29] John 6:34 (NET)

[30] John 6:35a (NET)

[31] John 6:41a (NET)

[32] John 6:35-40 (NET)

[33] John 6:41 (NET)

[34] John 6:45